Share this:

A coalition of advocates for public financing are now resigned to seeing their push for a broad system of public financing of elections whittled down to the 2014 race for comptroller. But they’re not happy about it.

The system, which will have to be set up pronto due to the imminence of September’s primary, would be financed by unclaimed funds overseen by the comptroller and overseen by the state Board of Elections, which according to the same budget plan is slated to get a new independent enforcement counsel named by the governor with the approval of the Senate and Assembly leadership.

A spokesman for Independent Democratic Party leader Jeff Klein insisted on Monday morning that negotiations over public financing within the context of the budget deal “are ongoing,” a contention that sources in the Legislature and the executive chamber view as giggle-worthy.

One compelling question is why exactly the comptroller’s race was the contest selected to be the pilot for public financing, as opposed to another statewide race — such as the race for, y’know, governor.

Cuomo administration sources point out that the governor has pushed for all races — governor, attorney general, comptroller and all 213 legislative seats — to be included in the public financing program — which is absolutely true but slightly undercuts their parallel argument that DiNapoli himself has repeatedly pushed for the comptroller’s race to be a test for public finance.

In other words, if both Cuomo and DiNapoli are on the record supporting the idea of seeing their own offices used as the test case for public finance, why did Cuomo volunteer DiNapoli for the duty?

Administration sources acknowledge that they could have done it that way, but point to the not-so-distant past of Comptroller Alan Hevesi’s administration as evidence that the Comptroller’s office is a more fertile ground for a system designed to cut out pay-to-play behavior, especially given the Comptroller’s sole-trustee status over the massive public pension fund.

Susan Lerner of Common Cause noted that allegations of systemic corruption within the comptroller’s office haven’t cropped up since Hevesi’s fall in early 2007, and the office has been the subject of numerous reforms, instituted by DiNapoli as well as federal regulators such as the SEC.

While Lerner supports a public matching system for all 216 elected officials, she believes that “to take the comptroller’s office in isolation doesn’t make sense. The Capitol is where the big pay-to-play atmosphere is in place.”

Lerner called the comptroller-only plan “flawed and suspect” as well as “shockingly weak,” and blamed Cuomo for it. “It’s a very interesting play that seems to be about something other than campaign finance reform or public corruption,” she said.

A Cuomo source said DiNapoli, who has no announced opponent, would be well positioned to take advantage of the opt-in system when it’s set up.

Here’s the release from the coalition, which includes Common Cause as well as the Brennan Center for Justice, Citizen Action, NYPIRG and the state League of Women Voters:

A coalition of government reform organizations called on state Senate and state Assembly leaders to block action on a campaign finance reform plan that the groups called “deeply flawed and inadequate.” Instead, the groups argued that the plan must be dramatically strengthened and that such changes could be made in a matter of days.

The groups urged lawmakers to “take the time to do it right.”

There has been a virtual political crime wave at the state capital – with over 30 public officials engulfed in scandal over the past eight years. Thus, the groups stated that a Comptroller-only plan was woefully inadequate. The groups expressed their disappointment with Governor Cuomo in delivering this anemic plan, given that he has repeatedly stated his support for comprehensive campaign finance reforms, including a voluntary system of public financing for all races for state office. Moreover, we believe that this plan does not justify the governor’s agreement to end his Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption. That important work should continue.

The budget bill – the public protection and government section (S.6355-D/A.8555-D) – proposes a voluntary system of public financing solely for the office of state Comptroller and only for the election in just over seven months. The plan also leaves the much-maligned New York State Board of Elections as the agency overseeing this program.

Both houses of the Legislature are scheduled to be in session through the middle of this week giving negotiators three more days to hammer out a plan that offers a comprehensive solution to the failings of the state’s campaign finance system.

And here’s a Sunday-evening statement from NYPIRG’s Bill Mahoney:

Good government groups and supporters of campaign finance reform have issued a memo in opposition to Part H, Subpart D of S.6355-D/ A.8555-D, the section of the budget implementing a “trial run” for a public financing system. This proposal is so flawed that should it pass, the groups will urge Comptroller DiNapoli and his potential opponent(s) to refuse to participate in the system and take public funding.

Unlike Comptroller DiNapoli’s previous proposals to use his office for a “trial run,” the current print of the budget invests significant powers with the Board of Elections. Given the Board’s track record and the fact that there are only five months until the state’s primary elections, it is extremely doubtful that an adequate system can be implemented in time to provide a true representation of a public funding system. Additionally, this bill strips the restrictions on spending by political parties that existed in the Comptroller’s earlier proposals.

All of our groups believe that the unending series of scandals in Albany and the preliminary findings of the Moreland Commission illustrate the need for comprehensive and systematic changes. More immediately, however, the significant flaws in the Governor’s recent proposal show that it is not even a step in the right direction. We encourage the legislature and Governor Cuomo to reach agreement on a comprehensive reform package.

Share this:

A little strange that the one statewide official who currently does not take campaign contributions from people who do business with his office is put into a reform system, while the Governor and Attorney General who get oodles of money from people who do business with their offices are not. It’s time for a good searching probing investigative journalism project on just who gives and what they do with their access.

So the Comptroller, who has the statutory responsibility to maintain unclaimed funds and get them to their rightfull owners, is now suppose to take those funds away from people and spend them on his campaign?

This is a set-up, Cuomo wants his guy in that position he wants someone that will give him the keys to the candy store. Cuomo has not revealed his hand yet but DiNapoli should be very concerned if Cuomo wants what he does. A challenger of good old Andy’s will come forth ay some point when Andy has softened up his prey. The pension fund is the Cuomo family holy grail. Snatched away from papa Cuomo’s grasp. If Andy can get to that money and bankrupt the system he will have surpassed his dad. I better start testing out what kind of dog food I like to eat because if Andy gets his hooks in the pension system that is all I will be able to afford once my pension is gone

I find it incredibly sketchy that only DiNapoli will be subject to a public financing system for his Comptroller re-election bid this year. It just seems too convenient that the one public official that Cuomo absolutely can’t stand (due in part to his friendly stance towards labor and more liberal/progressive views) will be subject to a financing system which makes it much easier for a primary/general election opponent to succeed.

This just seems so strange to me since you would think that both the Attorney General (who happens to be much friendlier with Cuomo) and the Comptroller would be subject to any well intended “pilot” public financing initiative since they are the two lower level statewide, state level races that occur this year.

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised that DiNapoli would be singled out for this public financing reform pilot since word on the street is that top officials in the Cuomo administration will outright refuse to hire anyone who worked for OSC (even for low level Executive Chamber/DOB positions) due to the bad blood between the two offices.

Public financing was defeated because its main premise was flawed. It claimed to “reduce the influence of special interests” at a time in history (post Citizens United) when special interests are just beginning to discover the advantages of unlimited Super PAC investment over making direct contributions to a candidate or party. Even if both parties in Albany were determined to control growth in “independent” spending they would be powerless to do so. Dumping tax money into a system rife with special interest money is not a solution. The best Albany can do is to signal the Congress that NY is ready to ratify an amendment that enables control of outside spending.

Public financing of elections was defeated not because of its’ flaws, but because its’ success threatened the 1% Corporate Elite’s effective monopoly on controlling elections.
Yes, Sam Fedele, we need a Constitutional Amendment.
But as shown over & over in NYC, Public financing of elections has done much to level the playing field & allow folks to run who aren’t sucking up to the 1%.

@Responsible Liberal – Public financing of elections is not a rip-off; the STATUS QUO, where the 1% control much of the political system, is a HUGE rip-off. The 1% get tax breaks, Corporate Welfare, and duck their taxes with Corporate Loopholes. And the children of NY who don’t have enough teachers are getting ripped-off. And Working Class people who pay too much in taxes are getting ripped-off because the 1% pay too little.
Public financing of elections is the way to END these rip-offs.

@ Sam Fedele – do you actually think that the politicians who fought against Public financing of elections did so because they wanted a Constitutional Amendment instead? No, they fought against Public financing of elections because they are OWNED by the 1% Corporate Elite. Don’t be naive.

About Capitol Confidential

Capitol Confidential gathers the best coverage of New York politics and puts it all together. Each section - Capitol, The State Worker, New York on the Potomac, and Voices - represents a unique facet of the political scene. The Capitol section features coverage from the Times Union Capitol bureau. The State Worker is dedicated to state worker issues. New York on the Potomac offers news of interest to New Yorkers from Washington. And Voices features the best of everything else, pointing you to columnists and bloggers from across the Web.